Author Author

Yes, according to various pundits, blogs are So 2005. Or even So Over. I say nay. I don’t think blogs are dead, but blogs are changing — just like everything else in the media. 

It used to be that a “web log” (for those who still don’t know that that’s where the word “blog” comes from; believe me, there are more of you than you think, and there’s no shame in not knowing!) was one person’s ramblings (at AOL, they began as “AOL Journals,” for example). It was a functional form, meant to allow a web user to capture their daily ramblings online. Early blogs — from those that quickly died natural deaths on to those that still exist today, like the hugely popular Dooce — were about one person’s voice and consciousness. 

The good ones (the aforementioned Dooce; wish she would write more and fiddle with her design less for example) work like neverending stories. Perhaps a better comparison would be to serialized novels in the Dickensian vein, or early radio soap operas. What will So-and-so do next? Did that really happen? What a great anecdote! Etc.

Group blogs came along circa 2006 (Weblogs Inc., with its popular Slashfood, was early in the game, although of course Gawker had been making progress in that vein already), and quickly became like fun little tabloids, filled with specialized departments, recurring features, and lots and lots of photos. IMHO, the Gawker Empire sites were much better in their older format, where some spots got more real estate than others. The diversity made my click-finger itchy. Now I just scroll past everything.

But a funny thing happened on the way to O’Reilly Conferences. People started to realize something that I’d realized in 2006, when I started the first Blogging Book Club: Blogs are a terrific way to form, shepherd, and grow community. Most devoted blog readers will now tell you that the Comments sections on popular sites like The Huffington Post and Jezebel are more entertaining and informative than the posts they follow. 

Of course, this was when the collective Internets got their collective knickers in a twist about Web 2.0. For those of you who have never heard that term (and why innocent civilians, as opposed to web programmers, should know it is not clear), “Web 2.0″ refers to community-generated content. In other words, the hoi polloi are storming the bastions of the press! 

Thank goodness. I’ve talked often about how everyone needs an editor, and I believe that (NB to my colleagues: Anyone want to edit me? Please?). But that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to corral user-generated content so that it’s clear which sections of a site (or blog) are edited by “professionals” (read: Someone who has a stake in the advertising and promotion) and which are contributed to by “amateurs” (read: people who are often much smarter than the “professionals”). 

Tomorrow: What’s Next? Web 3.0?

4 Comments

The real fun of any book festival comes not in its panels, but in its social events. From catching up with an old friend over coffee to attending a big party, book business fades and book gossip increases — and when I say “gossip,” I don’t necessarily mean the negative, toxic kind. I mean connecting, chattering, and sharing. 

For example, I said in my last post that Alan Cheuse was irascible during our Book Review Superstars panel. After we finished, Bella Stander asked if I could give Cheuse a ride back to the Omni, as he was driving back to his Maryland home that evening. Since I was already chauffeuring Lou Bayard, I said sure, and we all hopped into my Mini for the very short ride across town.

Unfortunately, since everyone else chose that moment to leave the UVA Bookstore parking garage, too, we three were trapped together in my little car for much longer than we’d expected. We were in close quarters. We were still wearing the faux-bling necklaces that Bella Stander had draped over our necks at the panel’s start. We had no choice. We had to…talk.

Now, Lou Bayard and I can talk each other’s ears off, and have even been known to break into song from time to time (just don’t ask about the late-night rendition of “All the Single Ladies”). But neither one of us has met Cheuse socially before, and we felt a little shy — especially after hearing him on the panel. 

But you know me. I can’t just sit there and waste an opportunity to get to know an author, and Cheuse had been gracious enough to take one of his books and inscribe it to me. Before we could get to the lowest parking level, I’d discovered not only that one of his daughters went to Smith a few years after I did, and that said daughter is a fantastic publicist with whom I’ve worked several times. 

A few minutes more and all three of us were having a wonderful conversation about politics, DC, children, books, reading, and more. There was no irascibility and there was no line-drawing; it was a fun, collegial chat. I’m looking forward to interviewing and working with Cheuse more in the future (although he may not agree to vogue with me a la Sasha Fierce). 

Tomorrow: Dinner with agents and authors, and why knitting matters

1 Comment

As most of us in Washington, DC, know, yesterday was the final print edition of our beloved Washington Post “Book World” review supplement. 

No one can be happy that this section is gone. Or can we?

First of all, let’s not be caught up in the idea that the section’s pages have disappeared due to lack of advertising dollars. As Motoko Rich noted in this NYT piece, advertising dollars were never what kept newspaper specials afloat, anyway. What did keep Book World afloat for many years was the support of Don Graham; perhaps Marcus Brauchle has decided to do the same thing, only in a different form: online.

This may not please folks who preferred to recline with print rather than with a laptop, and I understand that. We’re not yet to the point where e-reading devices mimick the ease and ergonomics of bending, folding, and mashing newsprint pages to our liking. As reader after reader has noted in blog comments and news story comments about the change in Book World, people looked forward to curling up with the section each week and learning about books they wanted to read, books they might never read but needed to know about, and commentary on the literary life.

All of these things will still be available in the new, Web-based universe of Book World. To me, here’s the rub: We all realize it’s easier for us right now to read printed, easily flipped pages. We want our newsprint, and we find it easier to drink coffee while we’re holding a newspaper section in our hand than when we’re tapping away at a keyboard (be that keyboard on a laptop, a Kindle, or an iPhone).

If we really, truly, madly, and deeply care about Book World — or any other book coverage — will we follow it down the cyberpath? Because as far as I’m concerned, nothing will kill off thoughtful, smart, timely, and lively book coverage than everyone abandoning it as soon as its familiar form changes. 

If you love The Washington Post Book World, keep reading it — and other book coverage — online. Who knows? You might even become adept, as I already am, at drinking coffee at the same time, too.

Disagree with me! Tell me I’m crazy. Or describe your own struggle with this transition. We’re all in this together, or we won’t get to hear about books at all — that, my friends, would be the real tragedy.

4 Comments

Take heart, Washington Post Book World. While some editors there were still in elementary and high school, the Internets were already on the rise, threatening to take over the world of print. You could have done nothing to stop it.

                                            Please watch this video, if only to see the sincerity on the face of the San Francisco Examiner dude when he says “We’re not in this for money.” Haaaaahaha, Hee, hee, hee. Ahhhhhh… Oh, those days of innocence! 

However, given the demise of print book reviews sections and the quotes about their demise being driven by lack of advertising, maybe we’re all really not in this for money. Hmmm, things are getting interesting. 

(Thanks, Gabe Goldberg!)

Submit a comment

It’s official.

More shortly.

Here’s an update from The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz.

Readers, what do you think about this change? Will you read Book World in its entirety online?

5 Comments

Thank you, Lev Grossman, for that phrase from this article. I’ve been writing about publishing for a long time, now, and I’ve said many of these things before in print, in blogs, and in private. Maybe I’m a coelacanth, too. 

I know we all love paper books. They are warm to us and seem to be a respite from technology. I think it’s worth remembering that when they were first produced en masse, paper books must have seemed just as intimidatingly technological as e-readers and print-on-demand machines do today.

But the worst part about paper books is that they have allowed the publishing industry to cling too long to what Grossman correctly calls an “antique” business model based on unrealistic print runs and returns. 

What would you do if you could instantly change publishing? (I’d make sure author compensation worked well, but I’m a little biased…)

2 Comments

…and I feel fiiiiinnnnnnne.

I really do. That’s not to say I don’t feel for people who have lost their jobs, had their book releases delayed, and are worried about what comes next.

The reason I feel fine? I like transitions. What comes next will be new, different, and galvanizing. Publishing has been due for a change for a long time, probably since before I got my first out-of-college job offer as a publicity assistant and that was light years ago.

I was reminded of this need for change while watching the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony broadcast last Saturday night (I missed it first time around). The human-powered typeface spectacle showed how long we’ve been putting print to paper (much longer than Gutenberg, thankyouverymuch). The bound, paper book has contained some awesome words and taken some awesome forms (and I don’t use the word “awesome” lightly). I don’t think it will ever completely vanish — witness this business success.

It’s time for real change. Are you, as a reader, ready for it?

5 Comments

There was an interesting piece in today’s Washington Post Style section about the famed Newbery Award for children’s literature. It seems that the winners over the past years have dealt with such challenging subjects that they may not be reaching their intended audience. Some of the experts involved in the debate argue that “quality and popularity need not be mutually exclusive,” while others stand firm in their beliefs that literary merit must triumph.

As I type, President-Elect Obama is announcing his pick for Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, and speaking about the importance of easing our children away from video games and “reading to them at night” in the struggle to make our nation’s education system stronger. Those of us who love books and reading know that the Newbery debate isn’t just some frivolous chat about fiction; it’s about keeping kids engaged with narratives at a crucial stage, ages 8-12.

As the article points out, many previous Newbery winners like 1999 winner Louis Sachar’s Holes and 1953 runner-up E.B. White’s Charlotte’s Web, have become enduring bestsellers. The winner, with its cover earning the right to sport the distinctive gold embossed medal, usually becomes a bestseller in its own right for a time — but recently, the winners have been purchased by adults but not embraced by younger readers.

Gosh, I can’t imagine why; look at the 2008 winner. Now, first: Please let me say I don’t want to diss Laura Amy The 2008 winner has been called inaccessible to young readers.Schlitz. She deserves great praise for winning the Newbery. Second: I’m probably the biggest geek out there when it comes to medieval history (and no, I’m not a member of the SCA and I don’t want to join), and I plan to run out a buy a copy of this for myself, since I’m currently writing a popular history of the medieval world.

But is this a book that my Mini Maven would choose? Some people might argue that not every book a child should read is one that child would choose, that an adult should participate in book selection. Those people probably do not have tweens. At age seven, age eight, age nine, the Mini Maven was thrilled to have her school librarian recommend books to her. At age ten and eleven? Not so much!

Again, let’s not blame Schlitz for writing a book about medieval voices. It’s probably really, really good. I blame her publisher and her book designer, to tell you the truth — the tinted line drawing image and the antique-y font look more like a Reader’s Digest book design from the early 1960s than something that would attract today’s middle-schoolers. There’s absolutely no reason why this book couldn’t have had an edgier look and style. So, tell me, would you read this book? Would your child read it? I could be entirely wrong, but I believe that the Newbery judges need to keep readers in mind, and I think this book bypasses them.

9 Comments

Times are very, very tough for everyone, and they’re quite bleak for the media. Every day it seems there are more layoffs — those are expected in a bad economy. But for the media, along with the layoffs comes changes in information dissemination. Some publications are shutting down completely; others are going web-only; still others are fighting to stay open by combining and collaborating.

As for books and publishing: Well, if you believe everything you read, it’s all bad. Bad, bad, bad, and worse. Soon we will have no bookstores, no books, no publishing companies, no readers, and no cultural life whatsoever.

Fortunately, even if I learned nothing else from my liberal-arts education, I learned that you can’t believe everything you read, especially not simultaneously. Just because two writers both make cogent arguments doesn’t mean they’re both writer, or that either one of them is right. So take what I say here with a shaker full of salt.

I’m off to New York this morning for a few days of literary events and meetings. Tonight I’m attending The Moth Ball, which exists to celebrate a storytelling culture that seems to be exploding. People want stories; it’s a human imperative. On Wednesday evening, I’ll go to the National Book Awards. Several colleagues have said “Oh, BORING” — but I can’t find anything boring when it comes to celebrating the written version of stories, especially with some wonderful titles on the shortlist.

On Thursday, I’ll be interviewing Julia Glass about her new novel, I See You Everywhere – and you’ll get to read that interview here next week!

Finally, on Friday, I’ll make one of my regular appearances on NY1, the cable channel, this time to talk about books for holiday gift-giving, before heading over to Barnes & Noble.com to have a meeting about my new gig hosting their Center Stage book club. (This week we’re chatting with bestselling author Anne Rice, in case you’d care to ask her a question!)

So, you see, from my (admittedly limited) perspective, books aren’t dead. Neither are stories. What might be dead? Print on paper. But it’s going to be a long time before it’s completely gone.

3 Comments

…hypermiling.

Had you heard of it before? I actually had, mostly because I have the privilege of working with many folks at National Geographic on book projects, and most people at National Geographic are quite eco-conscious (even if their consciences don’t dictate that they become hypermilers themselves, they’re conscious of what it means, LOL).

Some info from the Oxford University Press blog:

Do you keep the tires on your car properly inflated to maximize your gas mileage? Have you removed the roof rack from your vehicle to streamline the car and reduce drag? Do you turn your engine off rather than idle at long stoplights? If you said yes to any of these questions you just might be a “hypermiler.”

Some history:
“Hypermiling” was coined in 2004 by Wayne Gerdes, who runs this web site. “Hypermiling” or “to hypermile” is to attempt to maximize gas mileage by making fuel-conserving adjustments to one’s car and one’s driving techniques. Rather than aiming for good mileage or even great mileage, hypermilers seek to push their gas tanks to the limit and achieve hypermileage, exceeding EPA ratings for miles per gallon.

Many of the methods followed by hypermilers are basic common sense—drive the speed limit, avoid hills and stop-and-go traffic, maintain proper tire pressure, don’t let your car idle, get rid of excess cargo—but others practiced by some devotees may seem slightly eccentric:
• driving without shoes (to increase the foot’s sensitivity on the pedals)
• parking so that you don’t have to back up to exit the space
• “ridge-riding” or driving with your tires lined up with the white line at the edge of the road to avoid driving through water-filled ruts in the road when it’s raining.

But regardless of your interest in “hypermiling,” you should check out the linked entry to see some of the other words considered for the 2008 Word of the Year. Here’s my favorite.

Submit a comment